I feel that one of the unlying truths to the myth of Adam and Eve and the Fall is man's inability to reconcile the concept of a loving God and suffering. I feel this story is an early attempt to remove God as the originating cause of our suffering, that somehow man had angered God as is so often depicted in the Old Testament and therefore reaped a justified punishment. But if man is not the responsibile party, then the concept of Original Sin falls apart and the resulting salvation theory of Jesus's death and resurrection with it. And, of course, this situation would undermine the very foundation of the Church's teaching.
As scientific evidence of evolution progresses, there appears to be more support for man's imperfections having come more from inherited genes than from some ancestor's sin. From the very beginning of life, there always has been a struggle among specifies to obtain the necessary requirements for maintaining their life. And that struggle at the expense of some other life. That struggle or drive is still inherent in the human species and has more to do with our suffering than the concept of Original Sin. Even when we have sufficient food and shelter we still find ways to compete and satisfy the drive to survive even at expense of others. It is that shedding of the old self and putting of the new man that is so much a part of Christ's teaching. As Christ so aptly put it, "The greatest love that a man has, is to lay down his life for another." That's the real struggle we have in our lives
I enjoyed your article and the resulting thoughts that it has provoked, David Jecmen, Grand Rapids, MI
For a number of years I taught the Scripture component of Christian Initiation for Adults. The role of myth came up every time. The literalism of some of the participants' religious background showed in our classes, as "myth" always equalled "false." I wish I had had Fr. Garvey's telling and succint article to share with them.
I feel that one of the unlying truths to the myth of Adam and Eve and the Fall is man's inability to reconcile the concept of a loving God and suffering. I feel this story is an early attempt to remove God as the originating cause of our suffering, that somehow man had angered God as is so often depicted in the Old Testament and therefore reaped a justified punishment. But if man is not the responsibile party, then the concept of Original Sin falls apart and the resulting salvation theory of Jesus's death and resurrection with it. And, of course, this situation would undermine the very foundation of the Church's teaching.
As scientific evidence of evolution progresses, there appears to be more support for man's imperfections having come more from inherited genes than from some ancestor's sin. From the very beginning of life, there always has been a struggle among specifies to obtain the necessary requirements for maintaining their life. And that struggle at the expense of some other life. That struggle or drive is still inherent in the human species and has more to do with our suffering than the concept of Original Sin. Even when we have sufficient food and shelter we still find ways to compete and satisfy the drive to survive even at expense of others. It is that shedding of the old self and putting of the new man that is so much a part of Christ's teaching. As Christ so aptly put it, "The greatest love that a man has, is to lay down his life for another." That's the real struggle we have in our lives
I enjoyed your article and the resulting thoughts that it has provoked, David Jecmen, Grand Rapids, MI
The issue of "myth" equalling "false, as noted by Trish Johnson, has been a similar problem in our parish book discussion. Our book discussion faciltator, a biblical scholar who teaches at Georgetown, has frequently made the same points John Garvey has highlighted in his article. However, the idea of "myth" equalling "false" is a very difficult one to dislodge from the minds of a number of people, based on my experience in discussing the issue with folks.
John Garveys' openness to exploring truth seems prejudiced when he refers to being "silly" anything written by Bishop Spong. I have found Spong's writing very helpful in understanding myths like the Creation story.
Evolution is a powerful truth about which the creators of the Adam and Eve story knew nothing. I get more insight and hope from the notion that we are in an evolutionary process moving toward pefection rather than following a myth that says we have fallen from a state of perfection. How else does Garvey explain evolution and Christ's place in that process and the scientific findings about primitive human which indictate we were never in a state of perfection?
Phil Aaron